Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward, Neil J. Wilkof, and Merpel. Nicola Searle is currently on sabbatical. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy

Friday, 1 September 2017

the
Performance of the UK Patent System.’ The research considers the UK patent
system through a range of sources including stakeholder interviews, analysis of
data, and existing academic literature, looking at how companies patent in the
UK, who patents in the UK, and how the UK system compares to other countries.

The
report suggests that overall the operation of the UK patent system is positive.
The number of patents covering the UK is high; however, UK firms appear
underrepresented in patent applications, with a lower proportion of domestic applicants
than other countries. See the full report here.

Kats searching for answers....

Calling all Trade
Mark Kats -Can you help?!

One
of our readers poses the following question relating to enforcement of costs
orders made in UK IPO trade mark proceedings:

As we know, section 68(2)(a) of the Trade Mark Act 1994 stipulates that any such order of the registrar may be enforced— in
England and Wales or Northern Ireland, in the same way as an order of the High
Court. In addition, the Trade Marks Manual says at
page 460 that to “enforce an order, an application must be made to the
Court, but it is not necessary to obtain a judgment. This is done by filing a
N322A to the High Court". Form N322A (here and
guidance note here) is
used for registering a conditional order.

However,
we are not sure if the wording of s68(2) reads as conditional… we Kats are
wondering whether in order to enforce am IPO costs order one has to take that
route, or the name and shame option at the IPO itself. Specifically, what
is there to prevent collecting payment of an order of sufficient size (£750) by
issuing a Statutory Demand under s123 Insolvency Act 1986 and - if still unpaid
- then issuing a winding up petition?

The
question of enforcement has been visited a few times in the past on IPKat (here and
here)
- but we don’t appear to have a direct answer to the question of whether or not
a statutory demand/insolvency approach is available to enforce an IPO costs
order, without having to go the High Court Form route at all. Any thoughts or comments from Readers are most welcome!

Do you need a
helping hand?

Joanna
Danquah is looking to enter the wonderful world of IP and is looking for voluntary
work experience in soft IP (particularly trade marks) at a private practice
firm or fashion company. Joanna holds an LLM in IP (Queen Mary University of
London) and has completed the Legal Practice Course (LPC). If you, or somebody
you know, would appreciate some assistance with IP work please email Joanna: jd.tm101@gmail.com

Events:

Research
in the era of digitization – data protection, research and access

The
National Library of Sweden and the European Commission Representation in Sweden
invite you to join them to discuss matters such as: What does the EU framework
for data protection and copyright mean in the context of globalisation of
exchange of data? What implications does the proposed Digital Single
Market Directive and General Data Protection Regulation on data protection have
on research and libraries? Participation, lunch and coffee is all free of charge. This
event takes place September 6, 2017, in Stockholm, full
details here.

Russian
Federation Roving Seminars on WIPO services

There
are three roving WIPO seminars taking place: The first seminar will be held as part of the Eastern Economic Forum 2017, in Vladivostok on September 7, 2017. The second will be on 11 September in Novosibirsk, and the third in Moscow on 14 September 2017. There is
no charge for registering or attending these events. For full details,
including programs and the registration page, here.

Better
Regulation for Copyright: Academics Meet Policy Makers

Academic
experts are coming together for a fact-based debate on evidence-based policy
making in copyright and related areas in an event curated by the Institute for
Law and the Web (ILAWS) at the University of Southampton, UK. Topics include;
neighbouring right for publishers, platform liability and copyright on data, with
a keynote by Commissioner Mariya Gabriel. This event takes place on Wednesday,
6 September 2017, 15:00–18:30 in ASP1G3, European Parliament, Brussels. Please
RSVP to sebastian.raible@ep.europa.eu. Travel subsidies may be available for
interested academic visitors.

The I3PM association, a non-profit
organisation dedicated to IP management topics, is hosting its 10th anniversary
event, which will be held at the WIPO headquarters on 21 September. The
association was born as an initiative of CEIPI students and currently is open
for IP professionals, who have an I3PM member recommendation. Topics include: PPH within the PCT, WIPO tools for users of the Madrid System, and Copyrights in
the digital world.Full details here
and here.

Dai Davis, a technology lawyer, will speak at the Intellectual Property Awareness Network Seminar on several nuances of Intellectual Property law that will change on Brexit including; changes to the “Exhaustion of Right” regime for Intellectual Property Rights, changes to harmonising Directives such as the Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive, effect on Database Rights, changes to Data Protection legislation, and Geographical Indications. The seminar takes place on Wednesday, 27 September 2017 from 3-5pm at CIPA in Holborn, London. Full details here and registration here.

2 comments:

A costs order from the IPO against an English entity can most conveniently be enforced through IPEC using the district judges that man the small claims track. A statutory demand is a bit OTT unless there is reason to believe the company is insolvent and would be better struck off. If you prefer a simple life at the desk you could just do a money claim online for the debt but the court fees are higher and if the defendant does not pay you are still back with enforcement. The Money Claim Online works with a UK company that is solvent and really does not want any judgements against it and simply has not paid because its peeved by the decision. The UK IPO name and shame procedure is best for foreign parties with no real business or assets in the UK to enforce against.

As far as I can see, the word "conditional" only appears on form N322A in relation to an "ACAS conditional settlement". For enforcing an order of the Registry, you would be using the form in its other role as an "Application for an order to allow enforcement of a decision that requires permission to proceed".

The guidance note EX328 entitled "I have a Tribunal decision but the respondent has not paid. How do I enforce it?" may give some insight on the use of the form. In particular, I note: "You will need to get and complete form N322B... As the type of decision you are enforcing does not require permission of the court to proceed no court fee is payable."

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!